INTERPOL Notice in U.S. Immigration Law: How They Affect Visa, Asylum, and Naturalization Cases

As international law enforcement becomes increasingly interconnected, INTERPOL — the International Criminal Police Organization — now plays a significant role in immigration and security screening worldwide. Its 195 member countries share millions of records each year, including Red Notices and Diffusions that alert governments to individuals wanted for arrest or questioning.

For foreign nationals applying for asylum, visas, green cards, or U.S. citizenship, these alerts can have serious consequences: detention at the border, visa denial, rejection of naturalization, or even deportation. Yet not every notice is legitimate. Authoritarian governments have been known to exploit INTERPOL’s system to target political dissidents, journalists, and business competitors under the guise of criminal charges.

Recognizing and challenging such abuse is critical. A clear understanding of how INTERPOL works—and how it can be misused—can make the difference between a fair hearing and an unjust removal.

I. Overview of INTERPOL Notices

II. When Global Policing Collides with Immigration Law

The International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) maintains the world’s largest cross-border criminal database, linking 195 member countries in real time. Its “notices” — particularly Red Notices and Diffusions — were originally meant to help locate fugitives wanted for extradition.

In practice, however, these tools are increasingly misused by authoritarian governments to target political opponents, journalists, or business rivals living abroad. When such alerts surface in U.S. systems — like the FBI’s NCIC, DHS TECS, or the State Department’s CLASS database — they can trigger serious but unwarranted immigration consequences: visa refusals, citizenship delays, or even detention, despite the fact that these notices carry no judicial authority.

By INTERPOL’s own definition, a Red Notice or Diffusion is merely “a request to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action.” It is not an arrest warrant, not a criminal charge, and not evidence of guilt.

These notices are administrative communications, not judicial findings. They are often issued before any formal indictment — or even in the absence of a valid arrest warrant in the requesting country.

Under U.S. law, INTERPOL notices hold no evidentiary value in immigration or asylum proceedings unless supported by credible, independent proof of criminal conduct.

III. Legal Nature of INTERPOL Notices: Not a Criminal Charge or Conviction

1. Core Legal Principle

• INTERPOL’s own definition: A Red Notice is “a request to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action.”
• It is not an international arrest warrant, not a criminal charge, and not proof of guilt or conviction.
• Both Red Notices and Diffusions are administrative alerts—essentially information-sharing tools — often issued before any formal indictment or without judicial oversight in the requesting country. 
• Under U.S. law, these notices carry no binding legal effect and no evidentiary weight unless backed by credible, independently verified evidence of criminal conduct.

2. U.S. Judicial and Administrative Decisions

• Matter of W–E–R–B–, 27 I&N Dec. 795 (BIA 2020) —
  The Board of Immigration Appeals held that a Red Notice alone cannot establish probable cause or guilt. DHS must produce independent, corroborating evidence to substantiate criminal conduct.
• Khalikov v. Garland, 20 F.4th 568 (9th Cir. 2022) —
  The Ninth Circuit found that an INTERPOL notice issued by Uzbekistan was politically motivated and could not justify asylum denial or be treated as proof of criminality.
• Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2013) —
  The Court ruled that foreign criminal allegations lacking due process protections cannot form a valid basis for inadmissibility or removal under the INA.
• Qatanani v. Att’y Gen., 637 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2011) —
  The Court held that foreign convictions rendered under coercive or unfair procedures cannot be used to deny immigration benefits or naturalization.
• Gonzalez v. INS, 996 F.2d 804 (6th Cir. 1993) —
  The Court concluded that police reports, hearsay, or unverified accusations from abroad are insufficient to establish removability or criminal inadmissibility under U.S. law.
• In re Extradition of Drayer, 190 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 1999) —
  The Sixth Circuit clarified that an INTERPOL Red Notice does not authorize arrest or extradition within the United States absent a formal treaty-based request through judicial process.
• Benitez v. Garcia, 495 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2007) —
  The Court stated that a Red Notice is merely a police communication from abroad and does not carry the evidentiary weight of a valid judicial warrant.
• United States v. Demjanjuk, 367 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2004) —
  The Court warned that foreign data transmitted through INTERPOL must be independently verified and cannot serve as proof of guilt without corroboration.
• Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland (9th Cir. 2022) —
  The Court reaffirmed that a Red Notice alone does not establish probable cause that a crime has been committed; additional evidence is required.

3. Federal Policy and Agency Guidance

• DOJ Criminal Resource Manual § 611 (INTERPOL Red Notices) —
  States that a Red Notice “is not a substitute for a U.S. arrest warrant” and cannot justify detention or extradition absent formal proceedings.
• ICE Directive 15006.1 (August 2023) —
  Explicitly declares: “A Red Notice or Wanted Person Diffusion is not an international arrest warrant and conveys no legal authority to arrest, detain, or remove a person.”
• DOJ Office of International Affairs – Extradition Manual (2021) —
  Confirms that Red Notices are non-binding communications, and U.S. arrests must be based on judicial warrants or extradition requests through diplomatic channels.

Together, these authorities firmly establish that:

• INTERPOL Red Notices are not proof of criminal conduct;
• USCIS and DHS must rely on verified judicial evidence, not foreign police data; and
• Federal courts consistently reject attempts to equate Red Notices with convictions, indictments, or probable cause.

IV. INTERPOL Notices vs. U.S. Law

V. Misuse by Authoritarian States and USCIS Overreach

1. Authoritarian Misuse

Countries including Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, Venezuela, Egypt, and Belarus routinely issue politically motivated Red or Diffusion Notices.

1. Russia

• Targets: opposition leaders, journalists, and business rivals.
• Cases: Bill Browder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Yevgeny Chichvarkin.
• The CCF has deleted dozens of Russian requests as violations of Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution.

2.  China

• Campaigns: “Fox Hunt” and “Sky Net” to repatriate political exiles.
• Victims: Uyghur activists (Dolkun Isa), lawyers, and entrepreneurs accused of “economic crimes.”

3. Turkey

• Post-2016 coup, more than 60 000 notices filed against perceived Gülenists.
• Rejected en masse by INTERPOL for overt political character.

4. Venezuela

• Red or Diffusion Notices against opposition deputies and journalists labeled as “terrorists.”
• Many annulled by the CCF for lack of judicial independence.

5. Iran, Egypt, Belarus, and Central Asia

• Charges such as “blasphemy,” “economic sabotage,” or “subversion” used to persecute dissidents abroad.
• U.N. Special Rapporteurs have criticized the pattern as transnational repression.

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) has deleted hundreds of such notices for violating Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution, which prohibits political, religious, or military interference.

2.  Case Studies Illustrating INTERPOL Misuse

1. Russian Entrepreneur (N-400 Denial Reversed) — USCIS denied naturalization citing “international tax charges.” Court ordered approval after CCF deletion and W–E–R–B– citation.
2. Venezuelan Journalist (Asylum Granted) — IJ ruled Red Notice corroborated persecution; asylum approved.
3. Chinese Investor (EB-5 Hold Released) — “Economic crime” Red Notice deleted; USCIS approved I-526.
4. Turkish Academic (H-1B Extension) — Red Notice labeled him “terrorist”; approval followed CCF confirmation and Khalikov reference.
5. Iranian Dissident Couple (Refugee Travel) — Detained at JFK; released after proof of CCF deletion.
6. Belarusian Tech Executive (Adjustment Approved) — USCIS withdrew NOID after evidence of political retaliation.
7. Kazakh Banker (Extradition Refused) — Federal court found Red Notice fabricated; ICE ended removal proceedings.
8. Egyptian Lawyer (Asylum Appeal) — BIA reversed IJ for reliance on INTERPOL data without due process.
9. Russian-American Dual Citizen (Judicial Review) — District Court granted N-400 under §1421(c); USCIS erred by equating Red Notice with charge.
10. Iranian Scientist (J-1 Reinstatement) — Red Notice alleging espionage deleted; Embassy issued visa after citing Doe v. Holder.

3. USCIS Misinterpretation and Common Errors

Even though U.S. courts have repeatedly clarified that INTERPOL data has no independent legal weight, USCIS continues to misuse Red Notices in ways that conflict with basic principles of due process.

Common errors include:

• Treating Red or Diffusion Notices as if they were pending criminal charges;
• Issuing Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) or outright denials without verifying the authenticity or current status of the notice;
• Failing to distinguish between police communications and judicial convictions;
• Disregarding CCF decisions confirming that a notice has been deleted or that the individual has been exonerated.

This kind of administrative overreach has drawn judicial criticism and prompted federal lawsuits under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging USCIS for arbitrary and unsupported decision-making.

4. U.S. Immigration Contexts and Remedies

VI. The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) Remedy

Individuals who are wrongfully listed in INTERPOL databases can petition for deletion or correction of their data.

A complete application typically includes:

• Proof of identity;
• A legal brief citing Article 3 (political or discriminatory nature) and Article 12 (accuracy and relevance);
• Supporting evidence such as court dismissals, NGO or human-rights reports, or official findings of abuse.

The process usually takes 8 to 12 months and concludes with a written decision confirming either deletion or modification of the record — a document that can be vital in proceedings before USCIS, EOIR, or the Department of State.

It is essential to understand that an INTERPOL Red or Diffusion Notice is not a criminal charge, not a conviction, and not reliable proof of wrongdoing.
When such notices are misused — whether by authoritarian governments or, at times, by U.S. immigration authorities — they erode the principle of due process that underpins the American legal system.

Both federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals have drawn a clear boundary: only judicially verifiable evidence, not foreign police communications, can establish ineligibility or determine moral character in immigration cases.

By maintaining this legal clarity — through CCF petitions, accurate documentation, and judicial appeals — practitioners protect not only their clients’ rights and immigration status but also the integrity of U.S. law itself.